Response to Janet Wasko: Challenging Disney Myths

Hmmm… Where do I begin? I guess an overall impression is a good place to start. Then I guess I would have to say that I found Janet Wasko’s essay frustrating, repetitive and not very insightful. While reading, I tried to annotate the text and note where I found strong or weak arguments. However I never felt invested in the text and struggled to identify compelling arguments. While I can now claim to know more about Disney, both the man and the corporation, I feel that Wasko’s essay leaves me with more questions than answers. I don’t agree with much of what Wasko is saying and I’d like to consider some counter-arguments in this blog post.

I’ll begin with the tone of the essay. The introduction presented to me a new fusion of academic disciplines, ‘the integration of political economy and critical cultural analysis’. While the names drifted completely over my head, it did become evident that the points to follow would be presented through an anti-Disney lens. This made me consider the intention Wasko in writing this piece, to which the title helped immensely, “Challenging Disney Myths”. What I was expecting then was an objective analysis of the perception of the Disney brand against the reality of the Disney Corporation. However, I never found a discussion on the existing perception of Disney and why the Disney Corporation is so unique. Was it assumed? In any case, I find this omission immense and thus any point made by Wasko hard to qualify.

To demonstrate this omission, one need look no further than myth 2: ‘Disney as a Unique and Different Company’. Wasko makes the generalized and unsupported statement that the Disney Company is ‘somehow different and special’ and that it is hard to visualize Disney as a ‘profit-motivated company’. I find that even the least cynical individual would content with such a remark. Are we serious to consider that one of the world’s largest media companies, product manufacturers and entertainment conglomerate is operating as a non-profit? I don’t think we have challenged any myth in saying that Disney’s primary goal is to ‘generate income for its stockholders’, are we to say that Disney launches new lines of Winnie the Pooh without considering profits? When a company has a market share like Disney’s and investments across countless business sectors, how can Disney not operate as a capitalist enterprise? (As I said, I was left with a lot of questions). My critique however does end here. Wasko provides no support of why Disney is such a ‘special case’. The only qualifying statement that Wasko gives is ‘many think of Disney as something sacred and special and not as a commercial, profit based endeavor’ – to which I ask why? Just because Disney primarily operates in a sector of fantasy and imagination doesn’t mean that real world commercial objectives cannot determine its business practices.

My second objection to Wasko’s essay is her approach to Disney Products being wholesome and unbiased. Before I divulge into my critique however, I would agree with fragments of Wasko’s analysis. I readily agree that Disney products are ‘assumed to be wholesome, safe, pure…ethical, virtuous and unbiased’ which is consistent with Disney’s intent to be associated with such values and ideology. Furthermore, I was compelled to learn the gender disparity of Disney characters. Yet I must again concern myself with the subjectivity of Wasko to identify only one side of an argument. While Wasko proceeds to describe Disney’s brand of fantasy, imagination and pleasure as directly connected with a specific set of values, she fails to recognize how existing values and social norms influence the curation of Disney. In other words, Wasko concerns herself with how Disney influences culture but she completely ignores how existing culture influences Disney. Any argument discussing how Disney heroes are predominately male and aggressive while women are stereotypically portrayed as weak or pristine must be understood in context. While such observations reveal unmistakable themes and values, they must also be understood as a reflection of society. The portrayal of Snow White as motherly and pristine reflects the typically domestic perception of women in the 1930s, while modern heroines like Merida from Brave and Elsa of Frozen reflect the portrayal of women in a third-wave feminism world. While I do not contest that Disney’s values are very conservative and biased, I think they are as much tied to societal values as they are to Disney’s ideology. After all, society is the consumers of Disney products and the Disney brand, whom without, Disney ceases to exist.

My ambivalence about Wasko’s essay is manifest in her discussion on the myth that Disney is universally adored. Wasko attributes the universality and prosperity of Disney to its ‘carefully nurtured and controlled’ nature. I certainly agree with Wasko. Disney has been intentionally marketed and globally distributed to capture the interests of children and families around the world. However when Wasko states ‘that its brand recognition has been built and zealously protected’, I question what distinguishes Disney from any other company. Brand recognition and reputation is fundamental to any corporation and is carefully marketed and promoted to its audience. It is this repeated theme in Wasko’s essay that leaves me begging for more. Wasko writes that the ‘Disney Company consistently and emphatically insists on in its own self-definition and in its incessant promotion and marketing’. I unequivocally agree with these statements, yet they are broad and unsubstantiated. I am constantly left to consider why this applies exclusively to Disney. Wasko leads me to believe that just because Disney is founded on the themes of imagination, fantasy and family entertainment that it is immediately unlike any other corporation, yet I content that this is too simple of an answer and that for Wasko’s arguments to be valid, she must explicitly address why Disney transcends its existence as a capitalist enterprise.